Unraveling the Jesus myth

[The Duke of Vandals]

So, yeah... New to your site and didn't catch that a debate topic has to be explicitly specified. So here it is:

The gospel Jesus never existed. This is demonstrable by examining the evidene beyond the bible.


I. Josephus.

Apologists often like to point to Josephus as an "extra-biblical source" for the existence of Jesus. Setting aside the argument of how much of Josephus' testimony was his own and how much was entered in by the church aside, Josephus tells us of more than a half dozen Jews by the name of Jesus whose deeds and actions closely mirror the accounts of the gospel Jesus. Many of them predate the alleged time of the gospel Jesus. This is significant because it sets the stage for "Jesus cults" which existed before 1 ce.

Add to this early pagan cults and we have the beginnings for a formula that leads to Christianity.

II. Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria was a philosopher who associated with the early Essenes (individuals who would later be thought of as some of the first Christians). Philo was a hellenized Jew who was terribly interested in Jewish and Greek religion. He lived at the same time the gospel Jesus was alive and we know he visited Jerusalim at least once. That this writer would miss an incarnate Jewish godman is inconceivable. It would be like a civil rights movement writer living in Memphis during the 60's yet failing to speak a word about Martin Luther King... neither mentioning him directly ("I saw MLK / Jesus") or indirectly ("People keep talking about MLK / Jesus").

Understand that Jesus showed up in the equivalent of the blogger community of the era. With a written & read religion (Judaism) and Pax Romana ensuring safe travel, there was no conspiracy or campaign of persecution that could have stopped writers from chronicling the godman.

Yet history is utterly silent. Where we expect to see volumes we hear crickets.

III. The Gospels

Most apologists are convinced that the gospels existed as recently as two decades after Jesus' death. There's simply no evidence of this. The apologist claim is based on so-called "internal evidence"... meaning because so-and-so said such and such within the context of a specific date, they're guessing it happened then.

Thus, if an apologist were to read, "I'm eager to go to New York and climb to the top of both buildings of the World Trade Center", they'd have no choice but to conclude the statement was written before 9/11... which it wasn't. I wrote it just now, years after the fact.

The first gospel to be written was the gospel of Mark. We have no evidence of who actully wrote it or when, but the evidence we do have indicates it was written around 70 ce. Mark hsa nearly no miracles in it and depicts a nearly human Jesus. Mark, like Paul, when read alone is woefully ignorant of Key life events in Jesus alleged life... like the virgin birth.

The other gospels were collections of myths borrowed from earlier religions and invented outright by early church fathers. Each new gospel adding slightly to the tale, they don't come into Christian consciousness in any meaningful way until 180 ce where they're mentioned by a third party. We have no copies or originals of gospels from before the second century nor any writings which specifically mention them.

IV. The personhood of Jesus

In the early second century Athenagoras, a Christian philosopher, writes an explanation of Christianity to the Alexandrian church. In his 37 chapter "A plea for the Christians" he makes no mention of Jesus as an actual person. The closest he comes is to imply that Jesus is the son of god, but in this same sentiment he also intertwines Jesus with the logos or word of god. Athenagoras later writes another essay on how a resurrection should be possible, but this makes no mention of Jesus nor of any key life events of Jesus. Reading between the lines, it makes it sound as though he's speaking metaphorically and doing little more than musing.

It establishes that the gospels and notions that Jesus was an actual person was NOT in all Christian consciousness in the second century.

V. The Disciples and the Sales Pitch

At the core of Christian argumentation is a VERY strong appeal to emotion (guilt). We are told of Jesus (a re-telling of Mithras who's more accessable) who's everyhing to everyone: king and pauper, righteous and meek, etc. We are told that he died for our... specifically our sins. We are given a story that's very obviously impossible that demands additional evidence. After all, people don't just come back from the dead nor does water spontaneously become wine, etc.

Instead of evidence, we are given the emotionally charged claim of the disciples; those brave martyrs who believed so strongly in the Jesus story that they died for it. This is the REAL argument that apologists use. As human beings, we're naturally inclined to be motivated by guilt. We're SUPPOSED to feel guilty for questioning the bravery of people who sacrificed their lives for what they believed.

The problem is the disciples are as fictional as their mythical creator.

Nearly all of them are attributed multiple different deaths in multiple places in multiple manners.

Peter, for example is beheaded by Nero according to Anicetus, given a 25 year pontificate as bishop of Rome in the Clementines (making it impossible for him to be murdered by Nero) and was crucified upside down by the imaginings of Origen. Bartholemew (Nathaniel) travels to India, Persia, Armenia and somewhere in Africa before being beheaded in Armenia... AND Persia. The list goes on and on.

It's an ingeneous argument: Unsupported claims (Jesus) being evidenced by more unsupported claims (the disciples) with a powerful guilt trip and an exaltation of those who believe WITHOUT evidence. It's the perfect way to get people to believe in something they'd normally scoff at.

There's other evidence we can get into later, such as the non-existence of Nazareth in the first century, but that's enough for now.

By the by, I'm The Duke of Vandals and I look forward to your responses.

--------------------------------------------------

Sources:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_textual_evidence

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

http://www.bibleorigins.net/

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/

http://www.christianorigins.com/

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testhist.htm

http://jesusneverexisted.com/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... chap5.html

[The Duke of Vandals]

Hey Duke!
Can I get a clarification?

Is your position that the mighty son o' god depicted in the gospels doesn't exist, or does it go further, that there was no wandering preacher type Jesus of Nazareth underlying those stories?

(PS - Love your stuff.)

Thank you for the compliment. I had just written (what I thought to be) an excellent summation of Metacrock & easyrider's positions and what's wrong with them. When I hit save, I had been kicked out and had to log back in. When I did so, my post was gone. *grumbles* I have but myself to blame for such a newb mistake. Anyway...

My position is that the gospel Jesus... the person in the story of the NT... never existed.

What DID exist was a handful of myths from earlier pagan sources and a handful of Jewish rabble-rousers & wannabe prophets. Apologists are quick to point out that no one myth and no one Jesus is a mirror image of the gospel Jesus and they're right. None of them are. Instead, the gospel Jesus is a composite of many myths and individuals.

Understand that Christianity was born as an attempt to "re-judify" Judea. The Jews of the time were being persecuted by the Romans. The Romans had gone so far to institute a tax on being Jewish. "Yup. I'm a Jew" was a statement that meant you could kiss perhaps as much as 25% of yoru income / property goodbye. The early Christian mythmakers wanted to create a religion that people would want to believe in even if they were being persecuted for it.

Setting aside the centuries where being an atheist was an offense punishable by murder, Christianity has kept getting new members and retained members because of its memetic appeal. More on that in the memes thread in this subforum.

Christians (metacrock especially) insists that the disciples were real and that testimony of impossible events is as valid and acceptable as testimony of mundane events... which is clearly false. The bible only mentions the deaths of two of the disciples and the others are each described multiple deaths in multiple places by multiple methods. They're also attributed with traveling all over the world before coming back to Judea to by martyred.

My overall point is that Christianity is a type of propaganda. It's the cure you don't need (salvation) for the disease you don't really have (sin). It has a very clear doctrinal axe to grind. Most apologists aren't willing to even acknowledge this very obvious fact and are only capable of discussing the gospel writers & early Christians as saintly historians honestly writing down the things they saw without a drop or dram of untruth.

What I stated in my lost post is Meta, Easy and all other apologists want Jesus to enjoy the same legitimacy as other historical figures. We've got writings about Caesar and Cleopatra... we know there were Romans and Egyptians... why not Jesus complete with magic miracles?

The fact is that the people who were attempting to create Christianity knew exactly what they were doing and were looking to create a propaganda with a strong emotional appeal. The fact that we're still obsessed with events from the bronze age is a testament to their skill at historical fiction.

[Metacrock]

Hey Duke!
Can I get a clarification?

Is your position that the mighty son o' god depicted in the gospels doesn't exist, or does it go further, that there was no wandering preacher type Jesus of Nazareth underlying those stories?

(PS - Love your stuff.)

Thank you for the compliment. I had just written (what I thought to be) an excellent summation of Metacrock & easyrider's positions and what's wrong with them. When I hit save, I had been kicked out and had to log back in. When I did so, my post was gone. *grumbles* I have but myself to blame for such a newb mistake. Anyway...

Oooo, that is not a newbie mistake. I have done as recently as last week. I know just how you feel!

My position is that the gospel Jesus... the person in the story of the NT... never existed.





What DID exist was a handful of myths from earlier pagan sources and a handful of Jewish rabble-rousers & wannabe prophets. Apologists are quick to point out that no one myth and no one Jesus is a mirror image of the gospel Jesus and they're right. None of them are. Instead, the gospel Jesus is a composite of many myths and individuals.

But it sounds like you are also saying there was no real historical figure who served as the central model for the Gsopel guy. That's a very bad solution, because there almost certainly was. Now I'm the fist to admit that no literary account, inspried or otherwise, can truely grasp the essence of an indivdual. There are no doubt some embellishments in the text and nothing is a substittue for personal experince of God. But there was almost certainly a central histiorcal figure who claimed to be MEssiah and made wise teachings and was crucified by Pilate because the Sandhedrin persuaded him to do so.

Understand that Christianity was born as an attempt to "re-judify" Judea. The Jews of the time were being persecuted by the Romans. The Romans had gone so far to institute a tax on being Jewish. "Yup. I'm a Jew" was a statement that meant you could kiss perhaps as much as 25% of yoru income / property goodbye. The early Christian mythmakers wanted to create a religion that people would want to believe in even if they were being persecuted for it.

that assumes they were trying to create a sepearate religion. Nothing justifies that assupmtion. all canonical texts incidate they saw themselves as Jews. There was no hint of a different religion until well after Paul's minsitry got going.

can you document this tax on beign Jewish? Becasue one thing that is firmly establishsed is that the Romans respected and tolorted locial religions. The Romans had no interest in evagelizing for their own gods.

Setting aside the centuries where being an atheist was an offense punishable by murder, Christianity has kept getting new members and retained members because of its memetic appeal. More on that in the memes thread in this subforum.

ahahahahahaha, fictional cap trap. do you even understand that "memes" are nothing ore than an applied epidemological model. So they are saying ideas are diseases. The reason you can chart an idea by epidemologicla model is because ideas spread from person to person. Unlike diseases people have the freedom to reject them. They only spred from one to another because people talk about them to each other. That also means the weather is a meme. you dog is a meme. "Nice, day, how are you doing?" Is a meme. IN other words. it's saying anything.

Christians (metacrock especially) insists that the disciples were real and that testimony of impossible events is as valid and acceptable as testimony of mundane events... which is clearly false.

I don't accept that the disciples were real anymore than anyone else does. I don't necessarily buy the idea of the Gsopels written by the their namesakes. That's unmportant. Although I accept Lukan authorship outright. I think Mat wrote the Q saying source, or at least some saying source that was the basis of his Gospel and the community put it togehter. Mark was written by some unkown person and re worked by a community. John was written in a core form by Lazarus (the beleoved disciple who I believe was lazarus) and then redated by a whole community but most notibly papias Elder Johhn who wrote the epistles.

The bible only mentions the deaths of two of the disciples and the others are each described multiple deaths in multiple places by multiple methods. They're also attributed with traveling all over the world before coming back to Judea to by martyred.

It's only the early accounts we need to pay attention to. There are latter accounts and many of them can easily be disproven. One of the major sources used by the Divenchi code guy as a basis for the legond that John went to Frace wtih MM and Mary the mother and the alledged daughter can be proven to be based upon a fifth century saint of the same name.

But the early account within the first couple of centuries connected with chruch fathers and the doubters of philip are solid. The daughters of philip were very big influences on theearly chruch. The reprots of their death describes them as "great lights who have gone out." For women to be called "great lights" in the early chruch you know they did something big. It is said by many chruch fathes that they served as the early historians. they kept the recored who died and how they died.


what they don't tell us is who wrote what. thta's the irony.

My overall point is that Christianity is a type of propaganda. It's the cure you don't need (salvation) for the disease you don't really have (sin).

All world views are propaganda. Although I must admit televangelists don't help any. But aunxt ist he diseise no one has. Every hear anyone admit that his probelm is that life is meaningless and absurd? But Sartres atheist existentilism was big for three decades. 50s, 60s, 70s, Sartre and existentialism was much more of an influence than any of you kids today (no offense) realize. I was a Sartia atheist existentialist. That was the disease no one had. but atehists embrassed it all over the world. So it goes with most world views.

re-birth is the diease no one has. but kids today love to identify with Buddhism not reliaziing Buddah is saying re-brith is bad. re-birth is the diease he' going to cure you from.

It has a very clear doctrinal axe to grind. Most apologists aren't willing to even acknowledge this very obvious fact and are only capable of discussing the gospel writers & early Christians as saintly historians honestly writing down the things they saw without a drop or dram of untruth.

You think atheists aern't idoelogical you are just blind. Atheists aer the most ideolgical Iv'e ever seen. that's why you think idoeological slogans trup empirical evidence --very foolish.

What I stated in my lost post is Meta, Easy and all other apologists want Jesus to enjoy the same legitimacy as other historical figures. We've got writings about Caesar and Cleopatra... we know there were Romans and Egyptians... why not Jesus complete with magic miracles?

All of my atheist secuar historian professors agree with me on that. most historians do. You want to ignore the rules of real thinking and real acadmica and mak up your own adadmeia fuled by your prejudices.

The fact is that the people who were attempting to create Christianity knew exactly what they were doing and were looking to create a propaganda with a strong emotional appeal. The fact that we're still obsessed with events from the bronze age is a testament to their skill at historical fiction.

that's a very foolish charge. It's half truth, most half truths get you in trouble. Of course they were emotional about it, because they beileved there was a serious problem and that getting people saved was important.


all world views do this. ATheism is like this.

[Metacrock]

you think just spoiting an opinion prove something?

I have no idea what 'spoiting' means.

It means a false critique. Can't you look things up?

No really I'm covering my bad spelling. come on guys, I have dyslexia and when I type fast it's worse. This thread moves faster than greased light through fibder opic cable.

I've proven over and over again the validity of these sources.

Really? I hadn't noticed.

are you looking?

Does Tacitus even mention Jesus?

Yes, he calls him Christus. He thought Chrsit was a proper name because he was not Jewish and didn't understand that Christos was a loan word for the Hebrews used to say "Messiah" when they spoke Greek.

you just take the fact that your views are disproven by history. you are gainsaying the evidence becasue you don't like the evdience.

My views are no more 'disproven' as your's are 'proven'

The only reason Jesus of the gospels exists is because the gospels exist.

Holy Tautology Batman. How could you have the Jesus of the Gosples without the Gospels?

[Metacrock]

they are coroborated by an indepdent source. why must they be mentionedd by every source?

Then, you were be able to tell us what this 'independant' source is, and be able to demonstrate it is an independant source. Could you please point me to the independant source about these 500 witnesses?

that's for the guards on the tomb. Of cousre I can. Gospel of Peter. proven to be indpedent of canoical sources by none other than Ray Bown (that was the issue that made his repuration in the shcoarly world in 1960s).




Have Guards, Will Argue





I. Guards on the Tomb corroborated by a second source.


A. Skeptic's Argument that Only Matthew Mentions Guards.

The assumption is that since Mark was written first and it does not mention the guards, than Matthew added the point about the guards for apologetical purses, to answer the argument of the Jews that the disciples stole the body.


B. Matt is only Canonical Gospel to mention Guards, but Gospel of Peter also mentions them.

The Gospel of Peter was discovered in Egypt at Oxryranchus in the 19th century. It was probably written around 200 AD and contains some Gnostic elements, but is basically Orthodox. There are certain basic differences between Gospel of Peter (GPet) and the canonically, but mainly the two are in agreement.


C. GPet follows OT for Passion Narrative and Res.


1) Use of OT passages for Passion narrative.

Gospel of Peter (GPet) follows the OT as a means of describing the passion narrative, rather following Matthew. Jurgden Denker uses this observation to argue that GPet is independent is based upon an independent source. In addition to Denker, Koester, Borwn, and the very popular Charles Dominik Corssan also agree (Koster, 218).

It is upon this basis that Crossan constructs his "cross Gospel" which he dates in the middle of the first century, meaning, an independent source upon which all the canonical and GPet draw. But the independence of GPet from all of these sources is also guaranteed by it's failure to follow any one of them.


2) GPet does not follow any of the canonical, but is in general agreement with them.

Brown, who built his early reputation on study of GPet, follows the sequence of narrative in GPet and compares it in very close reading with that of the canonical Gospels. He finds that GPet is not dependent upon the canonical, although it is closer in the order of events to Matt/Mark rather than to Luke and John.


GPet follow the classical flow from trail through crucifixion to burial to tomb presumably with post resurrectional appearances to follow. The GPet sequence of individual episodes, however, is not the same as that of any can canonical Gospel...When one looks at the overall sequence in the 23 items I listed in table 10, it would take very great imagination to picture the author of GPet studying Matthew carefully, deliberately shifting episodes around and copying in episodes form Luke and John to produce the present sequence. [Brown, Death of the Messiah, 1322]


As documented on the Jesus Puzzle II page, and on Res part I. GPet is neither a copy of the canonical, nor are they a copy of GPet, but both use a common source in the Passion narrative which dates to AD 50 according to Crosson and Koester. Brown follows the flow of the narrative closely and presents a 23 point list in a huge table wich illustrates the point just made above. I cannot reproduce the enire table, but just to give a few examples:


"IN the Canonical Gospel's Passion Narrative we have an example of Matt. working conservatively and Luke working more freely with the Marcan outline and of each adding material: but neither produced an end product so radically diverse from Mark as GPet is from Matt." [Brown, 1325]



D. Why would the other Gospels omitt the Guards?

The question then arises, why did Mark, Luke and John no mention the guards? First, the assumption that because Mark was written first his information is older than Matthew's information, or is the same as Matt's is a false assumption. Matt. uses another source in creation small sayings that is neither form Mark nor used by Luke. This source is called M. So M could be older material than that found in Mark, so just because Matthew was written latter than Mark, it does not necessarily follow that his information is not older. M could contain a different tradition which Mark and Luke and John just chose not to use.

So why would they not mention the guards? Probably because the Jews had stopped making the argument because it didn't fly; the movement had grown and survived anyway. But the Matthew community, or Matthew School as some scholars have it, may have been confronted with a resurgence of that Jewish argument, or it may just be as simple as wanting to include all of the facts.



the 500


as for the 500 that is conjectural on my part. But it fits. Paul says there 500 no one can ever figure out where they came from. But in the final chapter of Luke Jesus walks through the streets of Betheny to go to the ascention place. Sot he whole twon of Bethany would have seen him. This was a small town on the outskirts of Jerusalem, they could have easily gotten 500 people fromt he general area as word spread "hey JEsus is alive and talk around in Betheny." He probalby hung around until a crowd gathered and then did whatever he did to ascend (or just beat out of there and went to frace or whatever--tounge in cheek I say).

Jesus and Jerry Lewis hanging out in cafes of Paris and drinking expresso and talking about Sartre. that's an image to conjure with.


But if you notice the frist chapter of acts it only mentions 11 people then the go to Bethany then them come back it says they had over 100. Where did they get them? Fromt he 500 (which I take to be a roudned figure not litteral).

[McCulloch]

How could you have the Jesus of the Gospels without the Gospels?

If Jesus was a literary creation, then the answer to this question would be, you couldn't. If Jesus was a real person who walked this earth, then the answer to this question would be, from whatever other accounts may have been written by him and by people who met him.

I've met Doherty and read his works. I've also read a number of criticisms of his work and other Christian apologetics. I am unconvinced by either side. I remain agnostic with regard to whether there was an historical person behind the Jesus myth.

[Lotan]

Thank you for the compliment. I had just written (what I thought to be) an excellent summation of Metacrock & easyrider's positions and what's wrong with them. When I hit save, I had been kicked out and had to log back in. When I did so, my post was gone. *grumbles* I have but myself to blame for such a newb mistake. Anyway...

I've learned the hard way that if I'm going to write a lengthy post, it's a good idea to 'copy' and 'save' it into Word occasionally. I still prefer to write them on site though.

My position is that the gospel Jesus... the person in the story of the NT... never existed.
What DID exist was a handful of myths from earlier pagan sources and a handful of Jewish rabble-rousers & wannabe prophets. Apologists are quick to point out that no one myth and no one Jesus is a mirror image of the gospel Jesus and they're right. None of them are. Instead, the gospel Jesus is a composite of many myths and individuals.

While I can agree that the greatest part of the gospels is pious invention, I wouldn't go so far as to claim with any certainty that there wasn't an historic person at the heart of the story. I am open to the idea, but I have never seen it presented in a conclusive manner. In short I don't think the 'Christ-myth' idea accounts for all the evidence. There is (to my knowledge) no good reason why there could not have been an historical Jesus; and such a figure would hardly have been out of place in 1st century Judea. Occam's razor says there was some such guy.
On top of that there is the expert testimony of historians, who have no theological ax to grind that I'm aware of, such as Donald Akenson or Michael Grant...

"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory." - Jesus :An Historian's Review of the Gospels, p. 200.

You can call this 'appeal to authority' if you like, but as a layman I am at the mercy of the experts, who overwhelmingly view Jesus as historical. Besides strictly secular historians, there are also liberal NT scholars like Koester and Crossan, who are just too damn smart to be fooled on this issue. If these guys regard Jesus as historical, then I'm in no position to argue with them.
That's not the case with Earl Doherty though, who I'll admit, is the only Christ-myther that I am all that familiar with. He does a good job of dissecting Paul, but outside of that his arguments are IMHO, kind of weak. Such as this attempt to discredit Josephus' mention of Jesus (Antiquities 20.9.1) which is independent attestation in favor of an historical person.

Understand that Christianity was born as an attempt to "re-judify" Judea. The Jews of the time were being persecuted by the Romans. The Romans had gone so far to institute a tax on being Jewish. "Yup. I'm a Jew" was a statement that meant you could kiss perhaps as much as 25% of yoru income / property goodbye. The early Christian mythmakers wanted to create a religion that people would want to believe in even if they were being persecuted for it.

I don't know about the "early Christian mythmakers" but, by all accounts, the earliest proto-Christians were ultra-orthodox Judahists who were indeed attempting to "re-judify" Judea by calling others to strict Torah observance, with the aim to inaugurate the 'Kingdom of God'. IOW, if they could just get enough people to be obedient enough, YHWH himself would come to reign on earth (and, not incidentally, kick some Roman *ss). There was no attempt to "create a religion" here, but to fully realize the potential of the existent one. After the Temple fell down, a hellenist view won the day.

Christians (metacrock especially) insists that the disciples were real and that testimony of impossible events is as valid and acceptable as testimony of mundane events... which is clearly false. The bible only mentions the deaths of two of the disciples and the others are each described multiple deaths in multiple places by multiple methods. They're also attributed with traveling all over the world before coming back to Judea to by martyred.

And yet in spite of later embellishment, there is still reason to accept that at least some of these people existed. Why else would the evangelists have gone to such trouble to make them look like idiots? Or to downplay the importance of Jesus' brother James? And besides, Paul mentions meeting with James and Peter. All the efforts of later writers to undermine the role of Jesus' family is positive evidence that they existed. Consider also Jesus' relationship to John the Baptist; Mark suggests that he is to some degree subordinate, so Matthew and Luke have to 'correct' that impression. It doesn't make sense that the "early Christian mythmakers", whose skill you so admire, would make such a mistake in the first place, does it?

What I stated in my lost post is Meta, Easy and all other apologists want Jesus to enjoy the same legitimacy as other historical figures. We've got writings about Caesar and Cleopatra... we know there were Romans and Egyptians... why not Jesus complete with magic miracles?

Because it's special pleading? The apologists will say that there is too much testimony to discount the miracles, but ignore the fact that much of the testimony that supported a low christology was deemed heretical and destroyed. Further, I think it is a function of the Christian meme (at least in some cases) that not even the slightest doubt can be entertained since it could crack the entire structure of faith.

The fact is that the people who were attempting to create Christianity knew exactly what they were doing and were looking to create a propaganda with a strong emotional appeal. The fact that we're still obsessed with events from the bronze age is a testament to their skill at historical fiction.

The problem is that "the people who were attempting to create Christianity" didn't do so until 40+ years after the fact. Paul started before that, but his 'Christianity' was at odds with that of the original followers of Jesus. It's only by following the trajectories of the Jesus myth backwards as close as possible to their origin that we can form theories about that origin.

[Metacrock]

How could you have the Jesus of the Gospels without the Gospels?

If Jesus was a literary creation, then the answer to this question would be, you couldn't. If Jesus was a real person who walked this earth, then the answer to this question would be, from whatever other accounts may have been written by him and by people who met him.

I've met Doherty and read his works. I've also read a number of criticisms of his work and other Christian apologetics. I am unconvinced by either side. I remain agnostic with regard to whether there was an historical person behind the Jesus myth.

Jesus of the Gospels is Jesus the way he is presented in the Gospels. so you have to have Gosples to have Jesus of the Gosples.

OK just being pedantic

I debated Doherty by email on the old Ghandi and Freke list.

[Metacrock]

The problem is that "the people who were attempting to create Christianity" didn't do so until 40+ years after the fact. Paul started before that, but his 'Christianity' was at odds with that of the original followers of Jesus. It's only by following the trajectories of the Jesus myth backwards as close as possible to their origin that we can form theories about that origin.

No that is just bull. I don't know sketpics are intent ot totally ignoring evething in the field of biblical schoalrship and assuming that the composition of Mark was the first time anyone ever heard of Christianity. that seems to be a common assujption. Of course there were source and people spreading the word before Mark. you do get that right?

do you not know abou Q? Q was a product of "the people attempting to create Christianity." They were doing that as early as AD 50 and probably much elaier.

the oral tradition period streached from 33 to 50, the ovelapped with writting until about 100. There is good evidence of many sources prior to Mark.

(1) pre markan redaction (which is not Q)

(2) Q

(3) Thomas (which part of PMR)

(4) oral tradition

(5) saying source usded by Paul (which is part of PMR)

(6) Original material of Gospel of the savior

(7) Thomas saying source (part of PMR and might be Q)

(8) Unknown Gospel

(9) Unkonwn Gospel of Egerton 2 (part of PMR)


So there are many sources it's clear Christianty was already a vital growing concern before mark was ever peened.


another way the traditional dates have ben changed is in understanding the proto version of Mark as lready being a work in progress way before 70.

we also have evdience that Mat existed before 70, which would push Mark back even further.

New ealry date for John places it in the 60s, so John now comes before mark for some scholars.


the old traditonal view is breaking up, where Mark =70 Mat and Luke = by 90 and John by 96. That is all old hat now. The new stuff puts all four canonical at ealier preiods and there's a lot of info on other sources that existed before them.

[Metacrock]

Because it's special pleading? The apologists will say that there is too much testimony to discount the miracles, but ignore the fact that much of the testimony that supported a low christology was deemed heretical and destroyed. Further, I think it is a function of the Christian meme (at least in some cases) that not even the slightest doubt can be entertained since it could crack the entire structure of faith.

you are lumping me in with your sterio type of apologists and you are not aware of my view of miracles.

I accept the possiblty of ancinet mircles because I've experinced modern ones. But I don't expect them to be apologietical tools because they cannot be proven. I am willing to accept that many of them in the Gospels are embellishments, but I think tis' likely that something like that happened in some part of Jesus' minsitry. It's almost cetain that he was credited with healing the sick. more "catholic" sorts of miracles such as the loaves and fishes mulitplying I'm willing to see as embellishement.

MIracles are improtant if you are a believer. I do not see them as proof and I can undersand why the are more of a stumbling block to a materilist than they are a proof. they are put there because they have spirutal meaning for believers not for unbleievers.

[Lotan]

as for the 500 that is conjectural on my part.

Thanks.